California Considers Banning Internal Combustion Engines To Meet Emissions Goals (sacbee.com)

New submitter Rick Schumann writes about California considering a ban on internal combustion engines: The ban on internal-combustion engine automobiles would be at least 10 years away, and it's unclear at this early stage if it would ban only sales and use of new cars, or ban existing cars as well. There's also no mention of two (or three) wheeled vehicles at this stage. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is nevertheless considering this seriously, in order to meet its ambitious emissions reduction goals. According to state data, tailpipes generate more than one-third of all greenhouse gases, and so far only a small fraction of California's motorists drive electric vehicles. The announcement was made in an interview with Bloomberg news. "I've gotten messages from the governor asking, 'Why haven't we done something already?' The governor has certainly indicated an interest in why China can do this and not California," Mary Nichols, the chairwoman of the CARB, told Bloomberg.

Comments

What about the working poor?

[rsilvergun]

like it or not electrics are a lot more expensive up front. They tightened their emissions rules on long haul trucks without tightening labor regulations and the result was desperate truckers forced into "leases" for new trucks where they worked for pennies a week and eventually gave the truck (and all the lease payments) to the company owner.

This is all well and good only if it's followed by worker protections. My question is, is this actual progressive policy or a bunch of rich people that just want clean air for themselves? For the truckers it was the latter.

Re:What about the working poor?

[Pfhorrest]

Deploying a state-wide network of self-driving electric cars would be one thing. You wouldn't even need to ban ICEs; people would just stop using them if the new system was better, which it very well could be. But just banning ICEs outright, without yet implementing a replacement for the many people who rely on 20 year old old beater cars to get to the shit jobs to pay their exorbitant rents, just ruins a bunch of people's lives.

Re:What about the working poor?

[mvdwege]

you would have to pay for exhaust of the power plant that produces the electricity your tesla is using.

We already do. Depending on local emissions standards, electricity companies have fairly strong pollution controls on their exhaust. And of course this is reflected in the cost of electricity.

And of course I'm not even talking about what method of generation you use. Some of them are even emissionless.

In short: fuck off with your false equivalency.

Re:What about the working poor?

[blindseer]

Then offer people a large electric car.

Can China do this?

[Zobeid]

quote: "The governor has certainly indicated an interest in why China can do this and not California."

So far the Chinese have shown that they can *talk* about banning combustion cars, not that they can actually make it work.

Re:Can China do this?

[phantomfive]

Well, let me tell you, Governor Brown will show you, that California will spare no expense, leave no stone unturned, to narrow the gap when it comes to talking about banning combustion cars!

Re:Can China do this?

[thegarbz]

So far the Chinese have shown that they can *talk* about banning combustion cars, not that they can actually make it work.

When we talk about China we always talk about the next thing China is talking about, without looking at what they have achieved in the past.

While we claim they are all talk, they are the biggest electric car market in the world and the rate of increase in the market has in the past 2 years surpassed the entire rest of the world. The USA talks about things and then generally plods slowly in that direction, spending more energy bickering about it in the government than actually instigating change. China on the other hand has a steady record of making a decision (often a questionable decision) and then plowing full steam ahead to achieve it.

Re:ha

[WoodstockJeff]

> Not everyone can walk out and afford a 40K brand new electric car.

Well, everyone that counts can. If you can't, you don't count.

How this will realistically go

[TWX]

First thing to bear in mind, banning all combustion-engine-powered cars would be an absolute nonstarter. There are a number of groups that would absolutely band-together to lobby against it, even if those groups that may not normally have a lot to do with each other (enthusiasts for horseless-carriage-era cars and modern auto manufacturers for example) would immediately find common ground to coordinate efforts.

Second, there are classes of vehicles and types of use that do not readily lend themselves to electric use. In particular vehicles designed for heavy offroad use would not make for good electrics when they go places that the electric grid doesn't service, and the mass-penalty in carrying batteries would be a problem for offroad performance. Additionally many commercial-service vehicles would make poor electrics if their daily range far exceeds what a charge can provide, as commercial vehicles might not even have opportunity to charge at their destinations.

Realistically, passenger cars that are not primarily geared toward commercial use would be the best application for electric adoption. Roads are built close to infrastructure and are themselves infrastructure, so recharging cars is practical or can be made practical. Additionally, when the entry-level electric car has a range equivalent to half a tank of gas, which is usually 100-150 miles, suddenly it becomes practical for most commuters for their daily use. Sure, some people do drive more than that in a given day, but most do not, so most people could make that kind of range work for them.

In addition to passenger cars, many 2wd commercial chassis would be designed with an electric option. While a lot of commercial vehicles would not be suitable as electrics, plenty more would be. It is not unrealistic that delivery vans could be made electric if their routes are sufficiently short, and personal-use "lifestyle" 2wd pickups could also make for good electrics when they're used similarly to passenger cars for things like commuting.

I expect that small and mid-sized sedans would be all-electric first. Small cars are usually least likely to be used for passenger livery, and mid-size sedans are extremely popular and the number of sales would make quite a dent in gasoline power. Large sedans would probably follow last since they're often used for police and passenger livery, and they may well always have a gasoline variant. Once these prove popular and successful then we might see coupes and sports cars work as popular electrics, and eventually trucks, vans, and other chassis.

Re:How this will realistically go

[Solandri]

I expect that small and mid-sized sedans would be all-electric first.

The problem is these are not the vehicles producing the emissions. The whole thing stems from MPG being the inverse of fuel consumption. People see the big MPG number from a fuel-efficient vehicle and think they're making a big difference in fuel consumption. It's actually the opposite - the bigger the MPG of a vehicle, the smaller the impact it has on overall consumption and emissions. Switching from a 25 MPG sedan to a 50 MPG Prius results in less fuel savings (and thus less emissions reduction) than someone switching from a 15 MPG full-size SUV to a 25 MPG large sedan. Yes, that 10 MPG improvement results in more fuel savings and more emissions reduction than the Prius' 25 MPG improvement.

15 MPG = 6.67 gallons to drive 100 miles
25 MPG = 4 gallons to drive 100 miles, a 2.67 gallon improvement
50 MPG = 2 gallons to drive 100 miles, only a 2 gallon improvement

Because MPG is the inverse of fuel consumption, it's 1/MPG which is the important value. And the bigger MPG values mean less incremental fuel savings. The rest of the world uses liters per 100 km to avoid this problem. For some reason it's backwards in the U.S., and marketing has abused it to make people feel good about buying a Prius when it's about the smallest difference you can make in terms of driving.

You know how environmentalists scoffed at hybrid SUVs? That was actually the best place to put a hybrid engine. The 6 MPG improvement the Highlander Hybrid gets from 22 to 28 MPG results in a fuel savings of nearly 1 gallon per 100 miles. That's about the same savings as switching from a 33 MPG econobox to a 50 MPG Prius. If you can improve a tractor trailer's 6 MPG to just 6,4 MPG, that also saves about the same amount of fuel per mile. It's the big vehicles which consume a lot of fuel whose efficiency you want to improve first in order to produce the biggest reduction in fuel consumption and emissions. The Priuses, econoboxes, and small sedans are roundoff error.

Give Musk credit. He actually understands this, which is why his next project is an electric tractor trailer.

Re:How this will realistically go

[SEE]

Plus of course you are not poisoning people with toxic exhaust fumes.

Riiiight. Because the 53% of locally-generated electrical power and the 42.88% of all consumed electrical power in California that came from burning coal, gas, oil, and biomass in 2016 was all using the secret California technique that doesn't involve emissions.

Re:Because

[flatt]

>why China can do this and not California

Because they're a dictatorship who can proclaim broad life-changing decrees and their citizens have no way to vote them out.

China or California?

Maybe they could start

[bobstreo]

Will all state and local government vehicles and see how it goes for them.

And the answer is....

[habig]

The governor has certainly indicated an interest in why China can do this and not California,"

Because one of the two is is a totalitarian communist regime and the other is....

Wait, I take that back.

Absolutely Go Jerry Brown Do This NOW!!

[Crashmarik]

We have to preserve our air, and there is no reason whatsover the good people of SoCal should suffer the health risks associated with internal combustion engines, not to mention that gasoline is a hazardous substance and known carcinogen.

Get this legislation to the governor's desk and signed ASAP.

Re:CARB can't even keep my hotrod off the roads.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should remember the past.

Prior to the Clean Air Act there were days you could not see LA City Hall when you were only two blocks away. Your eyes would burn and some people walked around with surgical masks. It wasn't only downtown, the smog was everywhere, from beaches to the hills. Studios would cancel filing on their back lots. When you see pictures of greyed out Chinese cities like Beijing, that is what Southern California used to be like.

You are an ignorant and selfish cunt.

I read the article before I submitted it..

[Rick Schumann]

To summarize a few points:
* This is just CARB 'talking' about this. It's not legislation, no one has introduced a bill. It's really just a 'what if' they're discussing.
* I hardly think they'd suddenly ban all IC engine vehicles. That would be a disaster, so don't even think about it.
* Furthermore it'd likely be a gradual shift away from IC engines to electric.
* Furthermore, I don't think things like motorcycles would be included in the ban, nor fleets of trucks, emergency vehicles, etc.
* Furthermore, I don't think it'd include existing vehicles, just new vehicles. Otherwise it would be an impossible financial burden on everyone. * Again: It's just above the level of coffee-table conversation the CARB is having about this. It would be at least TEN YEARS before they'd do anything.
* Furthermore, it'd likely have to be legislation. We all know how long that'd take, right?

Basically: No need to get all flustered about it -- YET. But it was worthy of being posted, so you all know what's going on. Also, not like you didn't all think something like this would come up eventually, anyway, we've been slowly moving towards this for a while now.

Re:CARB can't even keep my hotrod off the roads.

[PopeRatzo]

There is no proposal. There have been zero details given yet. It's nothing but a news bite at this point.

There are proposals. The media here in California actually talks about them a lot. None of them involve anything but new cars.

Re:Wake up to real reality

[serviscope_minor]

Meanwhile LA roads also keep expanding. Pretty obviously as the original post stated, Californians love cars, and LA residents plainly do not care about smog.

Or they do, but they care more about other things like jobs or not leaving their friends/family/support network more.

Your argument is a form of "people put up with it therefore they don't care so we shouldn't fix it". It's facile.

Re:FIrst show me a full replacement car

[serviscope_minor]

Perhaps,

No, not "perhaps".

http://www.statisticbrain.com/...

Statistically the majority of trips are well within the range of electric cars.

if you can charge them in between (within a 10 min timeframe) or at the end of the trips

Huh? No that has no effect. The average two way commute is much less than the average electric car journey. Charge it when you get home. Problem solved.

Also, the car had many advantages over the horse, while the electric car has almost none over a combustion engine one.

Apart from the massive lack of nasty emissions in precisely the places where people want to breathe and fuel economy?

Re:Wake up to real reality

[jeff4747]

I'm saying that California residents care about it little enough they will not put up with any large inconvenience

Californians have paid thousands of dollars more for their cars, because they cared enough about it to force carmakers to produce cars with the "California emissions" package.

Californians pay more for their gasoline because of the emissions and vapor capture requirements for gas stations.

Californians indeed care about this. Californians have also looked at their metropolises, figured out that public transportation, bikes and similar car alternatives can not work due to development decisions made in the 1930s. So they forced cars to be better and paid a lot of money for it.

If you think not having a car in Los Angeles is just an "inconvenience", it's abundantly obvious you have never attempted to live there.